Lilac Hills Ranch is Bad for San Diego

image
Published: 09 Oct, 2016
Updated: 17 Oct, 2022
2 min read

Opponents:

San Diego League of Women Voters

The San Diego Union-Tribune

The San Diego County Democratic Party

San Diego County Middle Class Taxpayers’ Association

 

There are many good reasons to oppose San Diego County’s Measure B – the Lilac Hills sprawl development project -- on the November 2016 ballot. All of them can be summed up like this: ballot-box planning allows developers to sidestep important public oversight that protects taxpayers and ensures orderly, responsible housing development.

Updated after more than a decade of public input and expert review, today’s general land-use plan for San Diego County allows 110 homes and no commercial uses on 608 rural acres that Measure B’s sponsor owns in northern San Diego County. If approved, Measure B would ALLOW the developer to build 1,746 new homes – a 15-fold increase over what the County has already approved -- and 90,000 sq. ft. of commercial uses on the property.

This development will place its 5,200 future residents – more people than live in the City of Del Mar -- in a rural agricultural area with very little existing urban infrastructure (roads, schools, urban fire and emergency medical services, sewer, and other utility services).

IVP Donate

Measure B fails to include most of the San Diego County Planning Commission’s September 11, 2015 conditions for approval: paying for extensive improvement to area roads, 5-minute fire service and EMS, and other required improvements.

The Board of Supervisors ordered an independent impact report on Measure B that was completed August 2, 2016. Here’s what that report demonstrates:

  1. San Diego County needs affordable housing. However, Measure B makes zero commitments to building affordable housing at ANY price level. (The claim by Measure B’s backers that the homes would sell for just $300,000 is not contained in the actual language of the measure and is therefore unenforceable.)
  2. Measure B will significantly contribute to traffic gridlock on I-15. The County has calculated that alleviating the I-15 gridlock will cost $1 billion. Measure B pays nothing toward I-15 improvements. Taxpayers must shoulder the cost to reduce the additional congestion if Measure B is approved.
  3. The homes would be located in Calfire’s Very High and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The County requires a 5-minute response for fire service and other EMS. However, Measure B promises only 10-minute response times.

The Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego have independently “fact checked” Measure B. Both have concluded that Measure B is a bad deal for San Diego County.

The Union-Tribune has come out against Measure B and summarized its reasoning for opposing this “flawed and misleading” project in this way: “It’s a bad proposal – and an awful precedent.”

Vote “no” on Measure B.  The facts prove it's BAD for San Diego County.

Pam Slater-Price

San Diego County Supervisor, District 3 1992-2013

 

Let Us Vote : Sign Now!

Mark Jackson

No on Measure B Committee

 

Related Articles:

Union Tribune

Voice of San Diego

County Impact Report

Latest articles

Crowd in Time Square.
NYC Exit Survey: 96% of Voters Understood Their Ranked Choice Ballots
An exit poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the nonprofit better elections group FairVote finds that ranked choice voting (RCV) continues to be supported by a vast majority of voters who find it simple, fair, and easy to use. The findings come in the wake of the city’s third use of RCV in its June 2025 primary elections....
01 Jul, 2025
-
6 min read
A man filling out his election ballot.
Oregon Activist Sues over Closed Primaries: 'I Shouldn't Have to Join a Party to Have a Voice'
A new lawsuit filed in Oregon challenges the constitutionality of the state’s closed primary system, which denies the state’s largest registered voting bloc – independent voters – access to taxpayer-funded primary elections. The suit alleges Oregon is denying the voters equal voting rights...
01 Jul, 2025
-
3 min read
Supreme Court building.
Supreme Court Sides with Federal Corrections Officers in Lawsuit Over Prison Incident
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 30 that federal prison officers and officials cannot be sued by an inmate who accused them of excessive force during a 2021 incident, delivering a victory for federal corrections personnel concerned about rising legal exposure for doing their jobs....
01 Jul, 2025
-
3 min read